While reading Joseph Weisenthal's post at paidContent on a SXSW panel titled "Ad-Supported Music, A New Hope For The Industry?" I was green with envy for all those who attended the industry mud slinging. It sounds even better than when I saw songwriter Michael Penn berate Consumer Electronic Association's Gary Shapiro on a Future of Music Summit panel.

Ad-supported music -- heck, music period -- is a contentious issue, and this panel showed the opinions and emotions of the different sides. On one hand there was Interscope's Ted Mico and RCRD LBL's Peter Rojas going back and forth, then the crowd got a bit chippy during Q&A (and, oddly, took issue with RCRD LBL's business model even though it pays the artists).

I wasn't there and am going off only a recap, but it seems that many people are not comfortable with the melting pot (I kinda hate that word but I'll use it here) that is today's record business. Different parties are going to have to live with the existence of different business models. Not all music is going to be given away at social media or artist websites, and not all music is going to be a paid download with a predetermined amount going to the owner of the sound recording. Hobbyists can give away their music while full-time professionals need a decent income. Between the two extremes are artists who want exposure and something in return for their work. Celebrity pop stars don't need the same sales model (or sales channel) as does an established jazz musician or singer-songwriter 15 years removed from a hit. There will be different types of contracts, different rights and different levels of ownership. It will be difficult to say if any one is better or worse than another, or if any one "cheapens" music or does harm to the tenets of intellectual property. They're just different.